Cost-Effectiveness and Reimbursement

Growing Crisis of Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure

  • >15M

    people with coronary artery disease (CAD) and more than 875,000 deaths per year from CAD2

  • 65+

    year-old population expected to increase an additional 44% by 2030. Mortality also increasing in 45-65 year-old population3

  • ~50%

    cardiogenic shock mortality rate for last 20+ years4 without Impella heart pumps

Reimbursement Resources

Explore a PDF relating to Impella heart pump coding and billing

Learn More

Explore a PDF relating to diagnosis codes common with Impella procedures

Download

Explore a PDF relating to program cost-effectiveness

Download

Explore a PDF relating to cardiac Cath lab codes

Download

Explore a PDF relating to physician coding and billing

Download

Explore a PDF relating to Impella 5.5 reimbursement physician coding and billing

Download

Impella is Associated with Reduced Mortality and Cost

Legacy studies on previous generations of Impella pumps showed the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs), including Impella, is particularly cost-effective.

  • 29-47% reduction in adverse events at 90 days (death, stroke, MI, and/or repeat revascularization)5, 6
  • 58% reduction in 30-day mortality for patients with CAD7
  • 44% lower in-hospital mortality for patients with higher comorbidities vs. IABP8

Impella Reduces Length of Stay and Readmissions

Impella therapy demonstrates significant cost savings and cost-effectiveness for payers and providers

Explore the Education Library

 

Improved Outcomes with Contemporary Practices in PROTECT III

Jeffrey Moses, MD, discusses the improved outcomes with contemporary practices seen in the PROTECT III study of Impella-supported high-risk PCI.

 

Comparing Impella® to ECMO in AMICS

Lemor et al. demonstrate better clinical outcomes, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and lower cost with Impella compared to ECMO in AMICS.

References

  1. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. (2019). Circulation.
  2. Einarson, et al. (2018). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 17, 83.
  3. Sidney, S., Go, A. S., Jaffe, M. G., Solomon, M. D., Ambrosy, A. P., & Rana, J. S. (2019). Association between aging of the US population and heart disease mortality from 2011 to 2017. JAMA Cardiology, 4(12), 1280-1286.
  4. Jeger, et al. (2008). Ann Intern Med.
  5. O’Neill, W.W., et al. (2012). Circulation, 126(14), 1717-1727.
  6. Dangas, G.D., et al. (2014). Am J Cardiol, 113(2), 222-228.
  7. Stretch, R., et al. (2014). J Am Coll Cardiol, 64(14), 1407-1415.
  8. Al-Khadra, et al. (2019). CCI, 95(3), 503-512.
  9. Maini, B., et al. (2014). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 14(3), 403-416.
  10. Gregory, D., et al. (2013). Am Health Drug Benefits, 6(2), 88-99.
  11. Aryana A, et al. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(7):1122-1130.
  12. Wohns D, et al. Innovations (Phila). 2014;9(1):38-42.
  13. Maini B, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83(6):E183-E192.
  14. Cheung A, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(17 Suppl B):B110. Abstract TCT-385

NPS-1282

This information is intended for use by customers, patients, and healthcare professionals in [region] only. We recognize that the Internet is a global communications medium; however, laws, regulatory requirements, and product information for medical products can vary from country to country. The product information included here may not be appropriate for use outside [region], and the information from other sites you visit may not be appropriate for use in [region].